0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Youre missing the point both of you!! if you gave up the small sites that just gave a payout, right. You would ofcourse have much more time over for the major earners, more time, resulting in much more uploads, in the long run resulting in more revenues!You would have much more controle, much less hassle. I mean just think of an MR, going to say 7 differant sites and all with their own MR policies.putting all eggs in one basket, is one saying but putting them in too many??? well look what happend to GM ( with 20 brands)
Wouldnt it make more sense to concentrate dead-.hard on say 4 or 5 sites, giving it everything and more, instead of wasting precious time and effort on something which really doesnt work?
Quote from: lagereek on November 19, 2010, 12:11Wouldnt it make more sense to concentrate dead-.hard on say 4 or 5 sites, giving it everything and more, instead of wasting precious time and effort on something which really doesnt work?No, it wouldn't. We need at least 10 strong sites, or better 15. Otherwise the big ones will sc%# us without mercy. Or worse, getty will buy the remaining sites from the big 4 and then it's game over. You will have to be happy if they throw you 1%. You will have to lick the crumbs off their table.Of course, some of the low earners suck, some don't have enough budget to do marketing. The least we can do is to give them a chance and supply them. Some will fail, no doubt, the time that we have invested is in vain, but if we don't support the low earners get ready to be sc%#*$ by those con artists really hard.
I would either be exclusive or spread my portfolio to all the sites that I can get a payout with. Just sticking to 4 or 5 doesn't appeal to me, it might seem like they will always be the highest earners but who know what will happen in the future? It wouldn't surprise me to see Veer or one of the others taking the place of one of the current top 5 and I would much rather have a big portfolio there when it happens than have to start from the bottom rung. I can get several payouts a year from some of the lower earners for very little work, just uploading my portfolio. Can't see the point in losing out on that.
I am taking into account my sales, expenses and time spent on microstock to estimate my hourly rate.It is, of course, a very rough guess estimate, but it give me an idea how much one hour of my time is worth in microstock.Then, I can use it to decide whether to submit or not to a low earning site depending on how much time is needed for uploading and processing there.
Youre missing the point both of you!! if you gave up the small sites that just gave a payout, right. You would ofcourse have much more time over for the major earners, more time, resulting in much more uploads, in the long run resulting in more revenues!You would have much more controle, much less hassle. I mean just think of an MR, going to say 7 differant sites and all with their own MR policies.putting all eggs in one basket, is one saying but putting them in too many??? well look what happend to GM ( with 20 brands)You mention Veer, as example, sure! but whats to say that Veer will still be around in a few years time? they certainly cant rely on Corbis to bail them, I can tell you that and with the going track, just look whats happend to many sites lately, StocXpert should have taught us a lesson.
I submit to the Big4 and the other ones that have an easy upload. On most of the low earners I have a payment once a year. It can be $50 or $500. It might not be much, but put together it's around 20% of my microstock income. And that is almost without any trouble at all because I only submit to the sites that have easiest uploading procedures (for example 123rf, Veer, Canstock, Scanstock, Crestock, Zoonar, Cutcaster and lately Graphicleftovers). My micro portfolio does not contain any recognizable people so I don't have any hassle with releases.If low earners really would like people to upload more pics, they should skip the categories and other extra work! (nobody needs categories anyways)
Youre missing the point both of you!! if you gave up the small sites that just gave a payout, right. You would ofcourse have much more time over for the major earners, more time, resulting in much more uploads, in the long run resulting in more revenues! You would have much more controle, much less hassle
Quote from: lagereek on November 19, 2010, 12:35Youre missing the point both of you!! if you gave up the small sites that just gave a payout, right. You would ofcourse have much more time over for the major earners, more time, resulting in much more uploads, in the long run resulting in more revenues!You would have much more controle, much less hassle. I mean just think of an MR, going to say 7 differant sites and all with their own MR policies.putting all eggs in one basket, is one saying but putting them in too many??? well look what happend to GM ( with 20 brands)You mention Veer, as example, sure! but whats to say that Veer will still be around in a few years time? they certainly cant rely on Corbis to bail them, I can tell you that and with the going track, just look whats happend to many sites lately, StocXpert should have taught us a lesson.There are 3 million pictures at CS, and maybe about the same at other low earners. The big ones have 4 times more. So, there are 75% microstock shooters thinking the same way you do. There was no real reason to start this topic at all.
Christian, I agree with you that right now the only sites worth expending a lot of energy on are the top 4. I get 95% of my income from them.OTOH, my productivity is pretty steady regardless of how many sites I upload to. As mentioned by others, the smaller sites have extremely easy upload procedures. If I can get a payout every couple of months from the small sites then they are worth it for me.
Quote from: Dook on November 19, 2010, 13:16Quote from: lagereek on November 19, 2010, 12:35Youre missing the point both of you!! if you gave up the small sites that just gave a payout, right. You would ofcourse have much more time over for the major earners, more time, resulting in much more uploads, in the long run resulting in more revenues!You would have much more controle, much less hassle. I mean just think of an MR, going to say 7 differant sites and all with their own MR policies.putting all eggs in one basket, is one saying but putting them in too many??? well look what happend to GM ( with 20 brands)You mention Veer, as example, sure! but whats to say that Veer will still be around in a few years time? they certainly cant rely on Corbis to bail them, I can tell you that and with the going track, just look whats happend to many sites lately, StocXpert should have taught us a lesson.There are 3 million pictures at CS, and maybe about the same at other low earners. The big ones have 4 times more. So, there are 75% microstock shooters thinking the same way you do. There was no real reason to start this topic at all.well Dook! stay out of it then!
I have to say though when I first read this topic I thought it was going to be more about the micro model than whether you should submit to more agencies. I create all these images that people want to buy, and I definitely wonder sometimes if I'm selling them the right way. It kind of seems like trial and error sometimes.
You got some good stuff in your book!Micro? hardly the right way of selling and for us who remembers the Trad-agency days, well its down out blasphemy, isnt it? selling off the peg for peanuts BUT! its qite fun and it can be pretty rewarding and its opend doors for many. We shouldnt knock it, its become a living for many.Whats the alternative? as far as stock, I mean? hanging around in some RM agency and wait for the ship to sink?
If I go through my last two months, I find that after Gettys blunder with IS, sites like FT and SS, is just moving closer and closer to IS and if this trend keeps up, well in a years time they will have overthrown IS, no doubt at all.Makes me think that instead of spreading files around, left, right and centre, wasting time and effort, maybe a few choosen would do better.
putting all eggs in one basket, is one saying but putting them in too many??? well look what happend to GM ( with 20 brands)
There is the risk that a site wont make enough money to justify using them but by giving them a chance, that risk is reduced. waiting on the sidelines is going to make their task much harder and we will end up with just a few sites that pay low commissions and don't have much respect for their contributors.
The question was: Are we really doing it right? We can't know for sure. We can only look back and around and try to learn from the past, from others and from our own experience.
.... Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last long.
There is no past you can learn from. This is a total different world, as the world was before 1985 and 1968 and 1945.
Allow me to go back in time, 1985 I guess.
I remember using the original internet. The Military version. No chat rooms or email. Using the Dot Matrix Printers.
But the discussion was started about what to do in Microstock. Only uploading to the Big Four (remember that it used to be more then four not so long ago!), or also to the "lower earners".As seen in the light of history, what should be wiser?
Quote from: Colette on November 20, 2010, 12:10But the discussion was started about what to do in Microstock. Only uploading to the Big Four (remember that it used to be more then four not so long ago!), or also to the "lower earners".As seen in the light of history, what should be wiser? Well my only point was you can't tell in advance what business model will take off. It's merely coincidence. The best stock site - technically - has always been Canstock. Duncan had some very innovative ideas (like keyword relevance) but he had to sell the shop. As to iStock, it's clear they want to get rid of the small unsustainable contributors for now, but what will happen when the financial guys sold or dumped them? Will they go back to their roots? They have some pretty good reviewers, a loyal customer base and a lot of karma left.If another model will take off, it won't be more of the same, but totally different. We don't know yet. What if Google takes over all shops with Google Images for a placement fee? What if Flickr realizes its potential? I don't know.
People might think they are losing income by neglecting sites who produce a smaller percentage of that income. However, you have to evaluate your business model. Are you spending time on those smaller sites? How much time? Could you take that time and redirect towards the sites producing a higher percentage of your income? It's similar to marketing your photography in any field. Who do you want to target? Do you want to spend your time shooting for clients who will pay you $500, $800, $1000 an hour ... or do you want to spend all day goofing around for a couple hundred bucks? My moto is leave the chump change for the chumps.
I also don't like the way the big sites have huge collections that they could easily trim down but they prefer to reject more new images than get rid of ones that are years old and much lower quality.
This is a total different world, as the world was before 1985 and 1968 and 1945. Enjoy it while it lasts. It won't last long.
Canstock, technically best?? surely you cant mean that.
Look! dont matter if its Trad-agency or Micro, an Agency is as good as its Search-engine, thats the heart of any photolibrary business. period.The CS and DT, searches lay importance on showing series of almost identical images on premiere search-pages, showing incredible lack of variety. This is regarded as one of the most derrogative aspects in any search-engine.
On DT, the dilemma is solved elegantly by switching from relevancy to downloads in the SE. You get a sort of Darwinian sorting then of the "best", as proven by sales. You won't have rows of similars either then.
Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 02:18Canstock, technically best?? surely you cant mean that.Actually I meant the contributor side of the site, years back, not the buyers side as I wasn't a buyer then.Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 02:18Look! dont matter if its Trad-agency or Micro, an Agency is as good as its Search-engine, thats the heart of any photolibrary business. period.The CS and DT, searches lay importance on showing series of almost identical images on premiere search-pages, showing incredible lack of variety. This is regarded as one of the most derrogative aspects in any search-engine.Well that's correct, and I discovered that too. As it isn't mathematically possible to do a relevant search on databases with millions of images, buyers apparently limit themselves partly to the first pages and to visual search (the majority of my DT sales is found by N/A). If there is an image "good enough" on the first pages, a jewel hidden on page xyz will not be sold. To escape that math dilemma, many sites added biasing features like N sales, karma of contributor, N views.That's what we all experience: the idiosyncrasies of a SE can make or break you.I guess that sites that have the most "honest" SE like DT and CanStockPhoto will produce the most similars on a relevancy search by necessity.Sites with a very biased SE (like the best match of IS) won't.The reason for this is that all the keywords have equal weight. SLocke made that remark here yesterday. I wrote about that 4 years ago when DT still had 300,000 images. I won't spill the beans any more by telling some sites allow their reviewers to add a rating to an image so it will popup at a more advanced position. But still, the closer you stick to relevancy, the more you risk rows of similars.On DT, the dilemma is solved elegantly by switching from relevancy to downloads in the SE. You get a sort of Darwinian sorting then of the "best", as proven by sales. You won't have rows of similars either then.
Well it seems to me that once you have an image ready to upload you have done 90% of the work.
QuoteWell it seems to me that once you have an image ready to upload you have done 90% of the work.Agree. Most smaller agencies have easy submitting.Exception is submitting at Panthermedia for example. But for me they are worth the time, I am doing well there.
Yes, the risk that they close the doors after you've done a lot of work, like my experience was at Zymmetrical. That's the reason why submitting only makes sense when it doesn't cost you a lot of time or when you are doing well at an agency. But even the bigger agencies can fail when they choose the wrong course. The bigger the ship, the difficulter (and time consuming) is the turn.
No, I am not thinking of StockXpert. They were not a new and they were not a small agency.And no, I don't think that new agencies are in for a 'quick buck'. As John Griffin from Cutcaster wrote a while ago: "I am working my butt off..."Perhaps some of these agencies are going to make it, but it's not easy money. Not for us and not for them.
Quote from: Colette on November 25, 2010, 04:06No, I am not thinking of StockXpert. They were not a new and they were not a small agency.And no, I don't think that new agencies are in for a 'quick buck'. As John Griffin from Cutcaster wrote a while ago: "I am working my butt off..."Perhaps some of these agencies are going to make it, but it's not easy money. Not for us and not for them.and if new small agencies arent in it for a quick buck?? they must seriously think that as a new player they can compete with the established ones? which ofcourse is impossible, so why are they in it? for the fun of it?I happen to know a few guys who ventured into Micro only a few years back and they were certainly in it for a quick couple of years revenue
Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 02:18Canstock, technically best?? surely you cant mean that.Actually I meant the contributor side of the site, years back, not the buyers side as I wasn't a buyer then.Quote from: lagereek on November 23, 2010, 02:18Look! dont matter if its Trad-agency or Micro, an Agency is as good as its Search-engine, thats the heart of any photolibrary business. period.The CS and DT, searches lay importance on showing series of almost identical images on premiere search-pages, showing incredible lack of variety. This is regarded as one of the most derrogative aspects in any search-engine.Well that's correct, and I discovered that too. As it isn't mathematically possible to do a relevant search on databases with millions of images, buyers apparently limit themselves partly to the first pages and to visual search (the majority of my DT sales is found by N/A).